Looking for God? Get Reasonable!
Never can order emerge from chaos. For example, picking out one letter at a time from a jar containing millions of jumbled letters and placing them side by side cannot result in a meaningful sentence. The infinite monkey theorem and its associated imagery is a popular and proverbial illustration of the mathematics of probability. According to calculations, it would take a million monkeys roughly a million years to type out the name of William Shakespeare. To obtain a paltry two lines from one of Shakespeare’s plays would require 10(150) strokes on a simplified 50 character typewriter, which means billions of billions of times more than the number of atoms in the entire universe. (The typing monkeys example is usually given as an argument in favor of evolution. Atheists say, “Given millions of years in the primordial soup, DNA will eventually form.” But the chance of that happening, according to this same example, is virtually nil)
The notion that the universe exploded and then developed in balanced perfection through random events and natural selection is similar to the suggestion that by dropping bombs into a junkyard, sooner or later one of them will blow everything together to assemble a car or a computer.
The possibility of an orderly universe developing by chance was calculated by Roger Penrose as being 10 to the power of 10(30) to one. It is something like hitting with a single pistol shot a target of one square inch at the end of the universe.
Consider if the sun was slightly closer to the earth, its rays would burn away all life. And if it was slightly more distant, life would freeze. If the earth’s density was a little more, the clouds would have been at our feet; if it was less, water vapor would disperse, leaving no water on earth. If the moon was bigger, sea water would rush miles inland, making inhabitation impossible near the shores; if it was smaller, there would be no tides in the seas. If the gravitational pull of the earth was stronger than it is now, blood would clot in the feet; and if it was weaker, the heart would have had to be several times larger to pump the blood to the brain. One can go on and on pointing out balances without which there would be no life on earth; indeed, to the extent that if the laws of nature were slightly different, there would be no carbon and thus, no life. The only answers that atheist scientists have to explain these countless fortuitous conditions and phenomena are “just-so” stories. (This term implies the non-provable nature of such explanations)
One classic atheist argument focuses upon what people perceive to be imperfections in creation. “How can there be a God when natural disasters, genocides, birth defects and illnesses occur?” Denying God based upon what we perceive to be injustices in life presumes that a divine being would not have designed our lives to be anything other than perfect, and that He would have established justice in the world. But we can just as easily propose that God did not design life on earth to be perfect because it is a test, its compensations due in another form of existence as a conclusion to the present creation.
Author : Syed Iqbal Zaheer